The Manhattan Declaration

Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon

Father Pat's Pastoral Ponderings


Fifth Sunday of Advent

December 13, 2009



As I write these lines, more than a quarter-million people have signed the Manhattan Declaration, released this past November 20. I suppose I should be personally gratified, in the sense that never before have so many people agreed with me! I was, in fact, one of seven Orthodox Christians who went on record to endorse the document prior to its publication.



There are several ways in which the Manhattan Declaration is significant.



The first, I suppose, is the content. This is a public and deliberately political (though not partisan) pronouncement on three points: It is pro-life, pro-marriage, and pro-religious freedom. Under these headings it makes specific assertions about abortion, the scientific or medical use of human embryonic tissue, the proposed extension of legitimacy to sexual unions other than that between a husband and wife, and the limitations imposed on the State with respect to the conscience.



Second, the document is significant in the great variety of its authors and original signers, a group embracing members and leaders from several Christian bodies. Indeed, the Manhattan Declaration was endorsed by Christians very little disposed, as a rule, to append their names to documents described as "ecumenical."



My friend, for example, Dr. Albert Mohler, the President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, was among the first to sign. Explaining the reason he determined to do so, Dr. Mohler wrote: "I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed."



Third, the Manhattan Declaration is significant in some of the public reaction to it. I don't mean the reviews of secular critics, of course, who detested the document's contents. Their assessments were uniformly predictable. Neither do I have in mind the insouciance of those who, on principle, avoid politics. Nor am I thinking of Christians who filter their ethical sympathies through a different weave (those, for instance, to whom executing murderers is morally equivalent to murdering babies). Such reactions were entirely expected.



The critics I have in mind, rather, are those Christians who confessed agreement with the substance of the Declaration while declining to associate with the other signers. Their objections, I believe, are significant in the sense of deserving comment.



We may take the example of the Evangelical spokesman, John MacArthur, Jr. His complaint was very simple: The Manhattan Declaration scans only the symptoms of certain social evils but neglects to address their root cause. That is to say, this document fails to proclaim the Gospel of salvation, which is the sole remedy for every social ill.



Substantially identical was the objection of the Orthodox Christian priest, Father Jonathan Tobias, who faulted the Declaration for not preaching repentance. This writer went even further, lampooning at length the document's style and rhetorical style. (Ironically, a somewhat softened Father Tobias has of late chastised James Carroll for a similar mockery of the Declaration.)



The objections of MacArthur and Tobias are curious in their evident presumption that Christians, when they speak in public, should limit their discourse to the proclamation of the Gospel and the summons to repentance.



This may be a legitimate view, though it was neither shared by many Christians over the centuries nor obviously favored by the prophets. Jonah, for instance, preached judgment — not repentance — at Nineveh, nor did his proclamation include one syllable of Good News. If this was true of Jonah, what shall we say of Nahum, whose own message to the Ninevites was just an expansion of Jonah's meager half-verse?



Respectfully, these objections to the Manhattan Declaration (including its rhetoric) could easily have been made against any one — and perhaps all — of the biblical prophets. Our modest Declaration, as a statement of social concern, invites the endorsement of Christians who share that concern. The matter is truly as plain as that.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles-2009/Reardon-The-Manhattan-Declaration.php

Για τον π. Ιωάννη Ρωμανίδη

Για τον π. Ιωάννη Ρωμανίδη



Η Ζάν ντ’ Άρκ (η Ιωάννα της Λορένης) κάηκε πάνω στη πυρά των βιαστών της Ρωμηοσύνης.Ο father John S. Romanides, ο π. Ιωάννης Ρωμανίδης αναλώθηκε στο πυρ του φλογερού του καημού για τη Ρωμηοσύνη.Η νεαρή ρωμαίισα της Δύσης με τη θυσία της συνετέλεσε στη διάσπαση του Αγγλοσαξωνικού κέντρου εξουσίας και αυτή η διάσπαση άνοιξε το δρόμο για το μεγάλο σεισμό της γαλλικής Επανάστασης. Το 19ο και 20ο αιώνα, σείστηκαν τα θεμέλια της Φραγκοσύνης, της παραδοσιακά άρχουσας τάξης της Δύσης, και μεγάλο μέρος του οικοδομήματος γκρεμίστηκε. Ο Διαφωτισμός μπορεί να μη κατάφερε να φωτίσει το σκότος των θνητών, να βρει την ανθρωπιά (γιά την οποία τα εκατομμύρια των πολιτών της Δύσης και όλου του πλανήτη, διψούν) αλλά τα θεμέλια των αρχαίων ρωμαϊκών ναών παραμένουν και περιμένουν ... στις βάσεις των Γοτθικών, των Νορμανδικών, των Φράγκικων μεγαθηρίων. Πάλι με χρόνους με καιρούς πάλι δικά μας θα ‘ναι.Ο π. Ιωάννης Ρωμανίδης αποκωδικοποίησε το επτασφράγιστο μυστικό της μεγαλύτερης επιχείρησης πολιτισμοκάθαρσης που έγινε ποτέ στην ιστορία της ανθρωπότητας και δίδαξε ότι η φώτιση δεν έρχεται ούτε μαγικά ούτε εγκεφαλικά παρά μόνο μετά την απαραίτητη προπόνηση, όταν με τον καιρό αρχίσει η θεραπεία του θνητού και το φθαρτό σαρκίο ενδύεται την άκτιστη ευπρέπεια μέσ’ από πόνο και ιδρώτες.Υπήρξε επιστήμων, καλλιτέχνης επιστήμων, οραματιστής, σχεδόν προφήτης, σκαπανεύς της λεγόμενης ακαδημαϊκής θεολογίας και της ιστορίας κι ας κάποιοι σκαφτιάδες του χώρου εθελοτυφλούν και σιωπούν. Θα λαλήσει ο ουρανός.Η δίστομος μάχαιρα του Λόγου θα λευτερώσει τους εν κοιλία θηρίου, κείμενους θνητούς και το γνωστό παραμύθι της Κοκκινοσκουφίτσας ο μεγαλύτερος εφιάλτης της ανθρωπότητας, θα έχει αίσιο τέλος.Τον τελευταίο καιρό τον στενοχώρησε η επίθεση που δέχτηκε εκτός των άλλων και εκ δεξιών … την ένοιωσε σαν κάτι άκομψο, τραχύ. Υπάρχει ένα στυλάκι που ενδημεί σ’ όλους τους χώρους. Φοριέται από προοδευτικούς ή συντηρητικούς, παραδοσιακούς ή εκσυγχρονιστές, επαρχιώτες ή πρωτευουσιάνους, κοσμοπολίτες ή αποτραβηγμένους, πλαδαρούς ή γυμνασμένους. Το Στύλ αυτό θα μπορούσε να ελέγξει το Χριστό για ασυνέπεια που δεν έστρεψε και την άλλη σιαγόνα, όταν Τον ράπισε ο δούλος του αρχιερέα ... Μακάρι ν’ αποφύγουμε του Χάμ τη καταδίκη.Ρωμηός ... κοσμοπολίτης, το πιο επικίνδυνο είδος δηλαδή, δίδαξε και έδειξε λόγοις τε και εικόναις, ότι μπορεί ο χριστιανός, ο ρωμηός, ο βαλκάνιος, ο έλληνας, ο μακεδόνας, ο εδεσσαίος, ο πολίτης του κόσμου, ο καθείς, να περπατάει με ψηλά το κεφάλι, με αξιοπρέπεια, γκρεμίζοντας τις τύψεις και τις ενοχές που σωρεύουν ύπουλα του κόσμου οι δυνάστες στα κεφάλια των θνητών, μ' ανόητους εθνικισμούς, κτηνώδης ρατσισμούς και πνιγηρούς ηθικισμούς.Το βλέμμα τ’ Αετού σ’ Ανατολή και Δύση, το δένδρο της ζωής στα έγκατα της γης καλλιεργεί κι’ ανθεί και φέρει κι’ άλλο.Όφις δήξας Καππαδόκην έθανεν.Είθε ο Συντρίψας την κεφαλήν του όφεως, ο Γιαχβέ, ο Μεγάλης Βουλής Άγγελος, ο Κύριος της Δόξης να δοξάσει τον π. Ιωάννη Ρωμανίδη.Διονύσης Παπαχριστοδούλου

Greeklish to Greek - by innoetics :: Δωρεάν Υπηρεσία

Greeklish to Greek - by innoetics :: Δωρεάν Υπηρεσία

New Orthodox Game Released for Wii and Play Station 3

New Orthodox Game Released for Wii and Play Station 3


December, 2009

Anaxios Games has announced, just in time for the holiday overconsumption season, a new game that is playable either on the Wii or the Play Station 3:



Semantron Hero



In this game, the player holds a dummy semantron (a plastic cylinder about the size and shape of a paper towel tube) on his left shoulder, and strikes its rubber-coated playing surface, not unlike that of an electronic drum, with a wooden mallet held in his right hand.



This elicits (an electronic approximation of) the familiar semantron tone from the game system's loudspeakers. The television/monitor screen shows a group of sleepy monks halfway between their cells and the monastery church. The object of the game is to play the call to prayer so well that the monks wander from their cells to the church. If the player does a poor job, the monks throw up their hands and go back to their cells.



"It's genius!" says Father Yuri ("George the Great, of course!") Granger, abbot of Holy Anguish Monastery of Mountain Crag, Kansas, USA. "Now Brother Tom can practice his semantron without waking the rest of us up, or making us wander to church when it's not time for a service. He can just put the headphones on!"



"I love it!" says Brother Tom ("the Apostle Thomas, the doubter") Blagovest, monastery bell-ringer and weeder of the onion patch. "Now I can get real good on the semantron, and sometimes get out of working in the garden, which I hate."



"Ahem," said Father Yuri, peering over Brother Tom's shoulder.



"Oops," said Brother Tom.



"Is outrage!" cried Father Vasiliy, in town promoting Anaxios Games' other great Orthodox game, Subdeacon Hero. "Was it plastic semantron --"



"No, hold it like this, your hand pointing this way," advised Brother Tom. "Now strike it. Good!"



"This is fun!" said Father Vasiliy. "Why are those monks going to sleep? What kind of game is this?"



"You're not doing it right. You're going too slow, and your rhythm is irregular," suggested Brother Tom.



"What is this game!" said Father Vasiliy. "Was it plastic semantron in XIX Century Russia? No, it was not!"



Reaction to the game among the game's target audience, 15-45 year old males, is mixed.



"Who wants to call monks to prayer?" asks Bob ("I don't have a saint because I'm not Orthodox but if I have to put something here I'll pick His Royal Bobness") Rymer, 47, senior stocking clerk at Home Depot in Emporia, Kansas. "I'd rather kill bug-eyed monsters."



"This is cool!" said Tim ("St Timothy") Teremaki, 12, of Lawrence, Kansas. "Look, I can make the monks go sleepy -- or I can make them go to church! Go sleepy! Go to church! Go sleepy! Go to church! Maybe when I grow up I can become a monk and play the semantron!"



"Hmm, maybe is not such outrage after all!" said Father Vasiliy.



"In Semantron Hero 2.0, set for release next summer," said Rajesh ("Basil the Great") Pashwali, senior game designer at Anaxios Games, "we are throwing in a crotchety Australian parish priest with the monks -- you must not only get the monks to prayer, but keep the priest from being outraged."



"Ha ha. Is very funny," said Father Vasiliy drily.



"We think so," said Brother Tom, Father Yuri, your intrepid editor, Bob Rymer, and Tim Teremaki.



This report was filed by your intrepid Onion Dome editor.

Post your comments on this article on The Onion Dome Feedback Blog

Epilogue by Photios Kontoglou1

Music is of two kinds (as are the other arts also)—secular and ecclesiastical. Each of these has been developed by different feelings and different states of the soul. Secular music expresses worldly (i.e., carnal) feelings and desires. Although these feelings may be very refined (romantic, sentimental, idealistic, etc.), they do not cease being carnal. Nevertheless, many people believe that these feelings are spiritual. However, spiritual feelings are expressed only by ecclesiastical music. Only ecclesiastical music can truly express the secret movements of the heart, which are entirely different from those inspired and developed by secular music. That is, it expresses contrition, humility, suffering and godly grief, which, as Paul says, "worketh repentance to salvation." [2] Ecclesiastical music can also evoke feelings of praise, thanksgiving, and holy enthusiasm. Secular music, on the other hand—even the purest—expresses carnal emotions, even when it is inspired by suffering and affliction. This type of suffering, Paul calls "worldly grief," which "worketh death." [3]




Thus two kinds of music were formed, the secular, which arouses emotion—any kind of emotion—and ecclesiastical music, which evokes contrition. St. John Chrysostom strongly condemns the attempts that were made by some of his contemporaries to introduce into the Church secular music, the music of the theatre and the mimes.



Only the arts which were developed by devout motives since the early years of Christianity have given expression to the spiritual essence of the religion. These alone can be called liturgical, that is, spiritual, in the sense that religion gives to the term spiritual. The "spiritual odes" of which Paul speaks [4] were works of such art. All the liturgical arts express the same thing: architecture, hymnody, iconography, embroidery, and even writing, the manner of walking, and in general the movements and gestures of the priests, the chiming of the bells, and so forth.



That these arts are truly of unique spirituality has been realized by many non-Orthodox, especially clergymen, whose sense-organs have been exposed, from youth on, to formative influences different from those in which Orthodox Christians have been brought up. Nevertheless, they confess that our icons and psalmody evoke in them contrition-of course, when executed by inspired and pious artists.



Thus, the value of the liturgical arts is not merely conventional, but real, extending beyond the limited conceptions that are due to nurture, habit, and taste, since even persons who are not of the Orthodox faith recognize that the arts of the Orthodox Church reflect the spirit of the Gospels and for this reason lift the soul above the earthly realm. And how could it be otherwise, inasmuch as these arts have been developed by sanctified hearts, which felt deeply the liturgical element in speech and music? Liturgical music is the natural musical garb of liturgical speech. Both sprang up together; they are one and the same thing. Essence and expression here have an absolute correspondence, even more exact than that of an object and its reflection in a mirror, for the objects of which we speak here belong to the spiritual realm. The profound and apocalyptic spirit of Christian religion and its mysteries could not be expressed faithfully and worthily except by these arts, which are called liturgical and spiritual, and which were developed by that same profound spirit. Only this music, and none other, uniquely expresses the spirit of our religion, because only this music has an absolute and most exact correspondence with it. This is testified to, I repeat, by certain men whose spiritual upbringing, religious training, phyletic and other heritage have no relation to that of the Orthodox. "The Spirit bloweth where it listeth," [5] and is transmitted to souls by means of sounds which the same Spirit formed, by illuminating the souls of the holy writers of hymns.



The Fathers of the Church ordained that Christians use the voice alone in execution of hymns, chanting as did our Lord Himself and His disciples. St. John Chrysostom says: "Our Savior chanted hymns just as we do." The Apostolic Constitutions forbid the use of musical instruments in the church. From the time of the Apostles, psalmody was monophonic, or homophonic, as it is to this day in our churches [in Greece].



The Western Church, in order to gratify people and flatter their tastes, put instruments inside the churches, disobeying what was ordained by the Fathers. They did this because they had no idea what liturgical music was and what secular music was, just as they did not know the difference between liturgical painting and secular painting. But the Byzantines distinguished the one from the other, and this shows how much more spiritual they were in comparison with the Westerners and how much more truly they experienced the spirit of Christianity. Byzantine music is, in comparison with the music of the West, exactly as Orthodox iconography is in comparison with the religious painting of the West.



How divine, indeed, is the psalmody of the Orthodox Church! It seems sweeter and sweeter each year to the Christian—a new wine that fills the heart with joy and makes it soar to the ethereal region of immortal life.



Byzantine music is peaceful, sad but consoling, enthusiastic but reserved, humble but heroic, simple but profound. It has the same spiritual essence as the Gospels, the hymns, the psalms, the books of the lives of the saints, and the iconography of Byzantium. That is why Byzantine music is monotonous for one to whom the Gospels are monotonous, naive for one to whom the Gospels are naive, circumscribed for one to whom the Gospels are circumscribed, mournful for one to whom the Gospels are mournful, antiquated for one to whom the Gospels are antiquated. But it is joyful for one to whom the Gospels are joyful, filled with compunction for one to whom the Gospels are filled with compunction, enthusiastic but humble for one to whom the Gospels, are enthusiastic but humble, and peaceful for one who experiences the peace of Christ.



Byzantine art is spiritual, and it is necessary that a man have spiritual depth in order to understand its mystical treasures. Byzantine music expresses "gladdening sorrow," [6] that is, that spiritual fragrance which only the spiritual senses are capable of experiencing. Its melody is not unholy, ostentatious, despondent, shallow, tasteless, or aimless; it is meek, humble, sweet with a certain bittersweetness, and full of contrition and mercy. It bestows an unwaning spiritual glory upon souls that have become worthy of the eternal mysteries and the compassion of God. It expresses thanksgiving; it causes the flow of tears of gratitude and spiritual joy. This music is the warmest, the most direct, and the most concise expression of the religious feeling of faithful Orthodox people.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[1] Photios Kontoglou of blessed memory (1895-1965) played a major role in the glorious return of traditional Byzantine iconography to the Greek Orthodox world in the twentieth century. He was also an accomplished chanter and a spiritual writer who inspired countless souls to embrace the unadultered traditions of the Orthodox faith. This epilogue consists of selections from his writings translated in the book Byzantine Sacred Art by Dr. Constantine Cavarnos, who was one of his disciples.



[2] II Cor. 7:10



[3] Ibid.



[4] Vid. Eph. 5:19 and Col. 3:16



[5] Jn. 3:8



[6] Vid. The Ladder, Step 7:9 (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. 88, col. 804B)



http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/music/Epilogue.htm

Fr. John Romanides on Extraterrestrial Alien Life

[It was reported this week that the Vatican has called in experts to study the possibility of extraterrestrial alien life and its implication for the Catholic Church. The Director of the Vatican Observatory commented that the discovery of possible alien life would have "many philosophical and theological implications" for Catholics. In 1965 Fr. John Romanides offered a valuable resource on this topic for a series run by the Boston Globe in which he gives the unique Orthodox perspective. The full text is below: - J.S.]

All Planets the Same: Religion’s Response to Space Life V



Rev. John S. Romanides, PhD.,

The Boston Globe

April 8, 1965, page 18.



I can foresee no way in which the teachings of the Orthodox Christian tradition could be affected by the discovery of intelligent beings on another planet. Some of my colleagues feel that even a discussion of the consequences of such a possibility is in itself a waste of time for serious theology and borders on the fringes of foolishness.



I am tempted to agree with them for several reasons.



As I understand the problem, the discovery of intelligent life on another planet would raise questions concerning traditional Roman Catholic and Protestant teachings regarding creation, the fall, man as the image of God, redemption and Biblical inerrancy.



First one should point out that in contrast to the traditions deriving from Latin Christianity, Greek Christianity never had a fundamentalist or literalist understanding of Biblical inspiration and was never committed to the inerrancy of scripture in matters concerning the structure of the universe and life in it. In this regard some modern attempts at de-mything the Bible are interesting and at times amusing.



Since the very first centuries of Christianity, theologians of the Greek tradition did not believe, as did the Latins, that humanity was created in a state of perfection from which it fell. Rather the Orthodox always believed that man [was] created imperfect, or at a low level of perfection, with the destiny of evolving to higher levels of perfection.



The fall of each man, therefore, entails a failure to reach perfection, rather than any collective fall from perfection.



Also spiritual evolution does not end in a static beatific vision. It is a never ending process which will go on even into eternity.



Also Orthodox Christianity, like Judaism, never knew the Latin and Protestant doctrine of original sin as an inherited Adamic guilt putting all humanity under a divine wrath which was supposedly satisfied by the death of Christ.



Thus the solidarity of the human race in Adamic guilt and the need for satisfaction of divine justice in order to avoid hell are unknown in the Greek Fathers.



This means that the interdependence and solidarity of creation and its need for redemption and perfection are seen in a different light.



The Orthodox believe that all creation is destined to share in the glory of God. Both damned and glorified will be saved. In other words both will have vision of God in his uncreated glory, with the difference that for the unjust this same uncreated glory of God will be the eternal fires of hell.



God is light for those who learn to love Him and a consuming fire for those who will not. God has no positive intent to punish.



For those not properly prepared, to see God is a cleansing experience, but one which does not move eternally toward higher reaches of perfection.



In contrast, hell is a static state of perfection somewhat similar to Platonic bliss.



In view of this the Orthodox never saw in the Bible any three story universe with a hell of created fire underneath the earth and a heaven beyond the stars.



For the Orthodox discovery of intelligent life on another planet would raise the question of how far advanced these beings are in their love and preparation for divine glory.



As on this planet, so on any other, the fact that one may have not as yet learned about the Lord of Glory of the Old and New Testament, does not mean that he is automatically condemned to hell, just as one who believes in Christ is not automatically destined to be involved in the eternal movement toward perfection.



It is also important to bear in mind that the Greek Fathers of the Church maintain that the soul of man is part of material creation, although a high form of it, and by nature mortal.



Only God is purely immaterial.



Life beyond death is not due to the nature of man but to the will of God. Thus man is not strictly speaking the image of God. Only the Lord of Glory, or the Angel of the Lord of Old and New Testament revelation is the image of God.



Man was created according to the image of God, which means that his destiny is to become like Christ who is the Incarnate Image of God.



Thus the possibility of intelligent beings on another planet being images of God as men on earth are supposed to be is not even a valid question from an Orthodox point of view.



Finally one could point out that the Orthodox Fathers rejected the Platonic belief in immutable archetypes of which this world of change is a poor copy.



This universe and the forms in it are unique and change is of the very essence of creation and not a product of the fall.



Furthermore the categories of change, motion and history belong to the eternal dimensions of salvation-history and are not to be discarded in some kind of eternal bliss.



Thus the existence of intelligent life on another planet behind or way ahead of us in intellectual and spiritual attainment will change little in the traditional beliefs of Orthodox Christianity.

The Old Calendar

The Old Calendar










Dear M.....,



Greetings in the Lord!







The issue of the Calendar had become a serious problem in the Church during the 20^th century and unfortunately, it still exists. Naturally things are far clearer now than they were when the problem first appeared.

Entire books have also been written in support of one side or the other; however, it is not our intention here to elaborate on the overall situation. What concerns us is to spherically inform you of the Orthodox rationale of our Church. A basic position such as this can be found in the letter of our Venerable Father Filotheos Zervakos, Abbot of the Sacred Monastery of Longovarda on Paros Island: “/*We aren’t followers of calendars; we are followers of Jesus Christ*/.” Essentially, this position solves all the problems surrounding the issue. However, certain clarifications are definitely necessary.

We won’t examine how the calendar was changed in certain countries (although we can certainly find many ugly elements). What is important for the Church is how to confront each problem that arises. Thus, when the calendar issue appeared, certain Orthodox Churches (for example the Church of Greece, the Church of Romania, the Church of Cyprus) officially accepted this change, while others (for example the Church of Russia, the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Bulgaria) did not accept it, and they adhered to the pre-existent calendar.

Many had reacted, having regarded this change to be an innovation. Perhaps to some degree they were right. However, those who had dissented ended up breaking their communion with the remaining corpus of the Church, and thereafter creating new, independent, “pure Churches”, whose further splintering and lack of restraint has no end, even to this day! Is it ever possible for this kind of thing to be the body of Christ?

As mentioned earlier, the local Churches had not confronted the change in the same manner; some had accepted it and others hadn’t. But then how did each view the other? The Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches that did *not* change the calendar or react in any way or regard as heretic or schismatic the Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches that did change*, continued to have canonical relations and sacramental communion*.

It is paranoid for an Orthodox to assert that all those Holy Synods acted incorrectly. And we are not saying this because we regard the Synods to be infallible, but because along with those decisions, we also have *the testimonies of saints of that period, who had accepted this new ecclesiastic event, after having received divine revelations*.

It is our duty as faithful Orthodox to comprehend what the true Patristic spirit is. It is indeed very dangerous and scandalous to make sudden changes – even proper ones – to whatever pertains to ecclesiastic order; however, it is far more important for ecclesiastic unity to be preserved, in every possible way. *The Holy Fathers always avoided schisms in every way they could*, often resorting to significant concessions (“oekonomia”). How much more should this be observed in the matter of the calendar, *which is NOT a dogmatic issue*?

The Church, dear brethren, has a specific structure and boundaries, which have been founded by the head of our Faith – our Lord Jesus Christ – and has been built up by the God-enlightened decisions of the Apostles and the Holy Fathers. The Sacred Canons do not expel from the Church the heretics only, but the schismatics also; in other words, all those who do not have a canonical association with the remainder of Her corpus. Thus, we can be consistent with the position of the Venerable Filotheos, provided we do not stumble over something like the Church of Greece being with the “new” calendar as opposed to the Church of Jerusalem which is with the “old” calendar, *when there is canonical sacramental communion between them*.

Should we however follow a “church” which is self-styled as “pure” or “genuine” on account of its calendar, but has no sacramental communion with *the local, canonical Orthodox Churches*, then we are not acting in accordance to the opinion of the Venerable Filotheos and the Fathers of Longovarda, which you mentioned.

In concluding this letter, we would like to inform you that fr. Filotheos himself did not agree with the change in the calendar, however, he never broke away from the bodyof the Church, to create any new Synod. Furthermore, he also happened to be one of the most vehemently opposed to the pan-heresy of Ecumenism, but he also fought bravely against all those who had embraced it (he even checked Patriarchs), again staying inside the bosom of the Church.

As regards the Orthodox position and stance opposite Ecumenism, we have already written a letter on the subject (_http://www.impantokratoros.gr/Ecumenism-Confronting.en.aspx_).



We would urge you paternally to guard yourself from every heretic teaching and innovation, but also making sure that you always remain united with the only Church of Christ.



May the Lord bless you and illuminate you!

With blessings,



The Abbot

† Archmandrite Cyril